Exploring the lived experience of older adults with dual sensory impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. With the aging of the population, the prevalence of combined age-related vision and hearing impairments continues to rise. This increase results in a higher likelihood for low vision practitioners to serve older adults with dual sensory impairment (DSI). In order to ultimately provide optimal services to this population, the purpose of this study was to explore the lived experiences of older adults with DSI, examine their perceptions of their loss and identify the obstacles they face in their daily lives. Method. Twenty-nine older adults (age range 60 to 100) with DSI were interviewed about their experience of living with DSI. These interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a phenomenological approach through qualitative description. Results. Inter-rater reliability assessment between the two students who conducted the coding was high (kappa = .85). Six themes emerged from the interviews, three of which described participant priorities before the onset of their DSI (diagnosis, symptoms and treatments), and three summarizing concerns thereafter (barriers, facilitators and experiences with assistive technology). The later focused on activities of daily living and leisure activities, as well as specific experiences when coping with DSI. Discussion. The description of participants’ perception and experience with their sensory impairments can help low vision practitioners understand their clients’ perspective and their rehabilitation priorities in order to improve the practitioners –patient relationship. Furthermore, in a more general way, this study enables a better understanding of individuals living with DSI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".